Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on why Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not want to testify in public. Mueller clearly had trouble explaining why he was refusing to reach a conclusion on obstruction in a meeting with Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It could be a hundred times more difficult — and embarrassing — before a congressional committee.

Mueller failed to perform the most basic function of a special counsel to reach conclusions on possible criminal conduct. After accepting the job as Special Counsel, Mueller basically decided not to be a special counsel with respect to this core responsibility. It was like watching Bodexpress run in the Preakness without a rider. My first reaction to both scenes was: can he do that? The answer in both cases is it is possible but this is not how it is done. The Special Counsel is mandated to find possible evidence of criminal conduct. Period.

Here is the column:

One of the more profound statements by Archie Bunker in “All In The Family” came when he corrected his daughter Gloria for questioning if God made a mistake: “God don’t make no mistakes, that’s how he got to be God.” There is a certain value in divine status. Natural disasters are dismissed as “God’s will,” and genetic defects as part of “God’s plan.”

Very few mortals ever warrant such faith, except perhaps Robert Mueller. Washington has deified him by popular acclamation. The times demanded it. It was simply not enough to demonize Donald Trump. That was done throughout the 2016 campaign, with the notable assistance of Trump himself. However, you cannot have a villain without a countervailing hero. Evil needs a point of reference, and Mueller became that reference. While Trump is portrayed as bombastic, impetuous, and juvenile, Mueller is painted as stoic, reserved, and professional. Indeed, as every new filing undermined the common narrative of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, the commentators fell into a mantra of “just wait for Mueller.”

They are still waiting. Mueller has yet to testify despite Attorney General William Barr stating that he has no objections to him doing so. In the past week, it was confirmed that Mueller is resisting testifying in public. At the same time, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler indicated that his committee may indeed allow Mueller to appear in private with no subpoena, no cameras, and no cries of coverup. The media is remarkably uninterested in the reason for this demand from Muelller. After all, if you have no faith in Mueller, then you are an apostate within the Beltway.

So why is Mueller and his staff so worried and apprehensive about his answering questions in public? To answer that question, we must look at his report objectively, as agnostics rather than as advocates for one side or the other. Mueller has to address several glaring problems with how he carried out his responsibilities, including his reported failure to identify grand jury material, as requested by Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which may have delayed the report.

The most troubling failure, however, was Mueller refusing to reach a conclusion on obstruction. He reached a conclusion on any crimes linked to collusion and stated that his staff could “not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” He then stated that he would not reach a conclusion on obstruction, without explaining why beyond citing past Justice Department memos stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. His decision on this matter is incompatible with his mandate.

The special counsel is mandated to find possible evidence of criminal conduct. If Mueller is going to argue that he felt constrained by Justice Department memos, he was a failure as special counsel. I have argued, going back to my testimony in the Clinton impeachment hearings, that the Justice Department was wrong on those memos. Nothing in the Constitution says that a president has immunity from criminal charges. Nevertheless, one can accept these memos and still see the illogic in reading them as a bar to reaching conclusions as a special counsel.

First, any implied interpretation would not only contradict the governing federal regulations but contradict the express directions of the Justice Department superiors overseeing the special counsel. Indeed, both Barr and Rosenstein pushed Mueller to reach a conclusion on obstruction. When he failed to do so, they did it for him. No one has suggested that they violated Justice Department policy in reaching their conclusion.

Second, any reading of the two Justice Department memos dispels any notion of a limit on special counsels. Even accepting the flawed logic of the memoranda, they only speak to indicting a president while in office. Because such an indictment would tie up a president in litigation, it was argued that it would interfere with his functioning. Yet, nothing in that policy would stop a special counsel from making findings of criminal conduct. Indeed, Mueller made findings not just on collusion but on facts underlying obstruction. It is nonsensical to read memos on the indictment of a president to mean that you cannot find a basis for criminal charges.

Finally, this is what a special counsel does, as defined in the regulations, which outweigh any Office of Legal Counsel memos. A special counsel makes prosecutorial decisions. For two years, both Congress and the executive branch expected Mueller to reach conclusions. Before filing his report, Barr and Rosenstein expressly told him to do so. If he was not willing to do so, he should have stood aside when asked to come on.

Many of the commentators discussing the report in the media not only make excuses for Mueller but ignore that the report is not particularly impressive. The investigation by the FBI certainly was impressive and notable, especially on Russian hacking and trolling operations. However, the report itself reads like a long account of interesting vignettes with no prosecutorial conclusions. One obvious concern is that Mueller and his staff did not reach a conclusion on obstruction because they could not bring themselves to give Trump a clean bill of health on criminal conduct.

The statement released by Barr was damning to be sure. Even if Trump was not found to have acted in an indictable or impeachable fashion, he was found to have acted in a contemptible fashion. However, reaching a conclusion in both volumes may have proven too much for Mueller after months of abuse by Trump. If this was the motivation, then the greatest political offense established by the special counsel was indeed his own.

Mueller may not want to answer any of these questions in public. Indeed, he seemed to have trouble answering even in private. As Barr tellingly testified to the Senate: “Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that,” but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, “he would have found obstruction.” He continued: “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. When we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.”

That is not the Mueller many of us encountered 30 years ago. It is bizarre that he would meet with the attorney general and the deputy attorney general about his conclusions but not have a clear explanation on not reaching conclusions. In the past, the idea of Mueller saying his team was working on an explanation after two years would have been laughable.

The House Judiciary Committee is not placing conditions on Mueller testifying as it did with Barr, who had been willing to appear in public until the committee added a condition guaranteeing that he would not by insisting that he be questioned by legal staff, like a mob “torpedo” in the Kefauver hearings. When asked why they would forgo Barr testifying by insisting on such a condition, members said the special counsel report was so complicated that legal staff needed to question the witness.

Suddenly, it seems, the report has become less complicated. There is no demand for a public hearing and, apparently, no demand for legal staff to question Mueller. He has much to explain, and the public is entitled to hear it without the usual partisan filters. Mueller can still fulfill his mandate and redeem his legacy. After all, to err may not be divine, but it is human.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

143 thoughts on “Why Mueller May Be Fighting A Public Hearing”

Comment navigation

OPINION REVIEW & OUTLOOK (for those without access and paricularly to people like Peter, Anon etc.)
Robert Mueller’s Parting Shot
The special counsel gives House Democrats an impeachment nod.
By The Editorial Board
May 29, 2019 7:20 p.m. ET

Opinion: Robert Mueller: ‘Concerted Attack’ by Russia Hit U.S. Election

Robert Mueller made a surprise press conference on May 29, 2019, where he reiterated key findings of the Special Counsel’s report on Russian election interference in 2016. Image: REUTERS
Robert Mueller is an honorable man, as Marc Antony might have put it. And in his public statement Wednesday we saw a special counsel who went out of his way not to absolve Donald Trump and may have put his thumb on the scale toward impeachment.

Mr. Mueller offered no new facts about his probe at a press appearance in which he read a statement and took no questions. The event was mainly intended to deflect bipartisan requests that he testify on Capitol Hill about his 448-page report on Russia and the Trump campaign. He may have succeeded in that deflection, but not without taking revenge on the President who has criticized his probe.

The special counsel said the Russians he indicted for interfering in the 2016 election are innocent until proven guilty. About Mr. Trump he said only that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Yet as his report shows beyond doubt, there is no evidence of a conspiracy, broad or narrow. His report recounts a series of contacts between individual Russians and Trump officials that were of no great consequence and are connected by nothing more than coincidence. Mr. Mueller should have said this clearly on Wednesday.

Regarding obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller suggested that the reason his office reached no prosecutorial decision is because Justice Department rules don’t allow the indictment of a President while in office. “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider,” he said Wednesday.

He thus left it hanging for everyone else to infer whether he would have indicted Mr. Trump if he were not a sitting President. And he left Attorney General William Barr to take responsibility for reaching the prosecutorial judgment that Mr. Mueller refused to make. Mr. Mueller added to this sneaky anti-Trump implication by noting that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing.” What else could he mean but Congress and impeachment?

Yet Mr. Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction evidence in his own report makes clear that no investigation was obstructed. Not the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, and not his own. No witnesses were interfered with, and Mr. Mueller was allowed over two years to issue nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants and interview anyone he wanted, including anyone in the White House.

Mr. Trump sometimes showed his exasperation, and bad judgment, in suggesting to more than one adviser that Mr. Mueller be fired, but no one acted on it. The special counsel probe rolled on without interference. Yet on Wednesday Mr. Mueller would only say that “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Since when do prosecutors make it their job to pronounce whether someone they investigate is exonerated? Their job is to indict, or not, and if not then keep quiet.

Mr. Mueller finished his statement with an ode to “the attorneys, the FBI agents, and analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.” These individuals, he said, “were of the highest integrity.”

Does that include Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who is being investigated for lying to investigators? Does he mean Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI paramours whose antipathy for Donald Trump is obvious from their text messages? Mr. Strzok was part of Mr. Mueller’s investigating team until those texts were discovered.

Does Mr. Mueller also mean the FBI officials who used the politically motivated, and since discredited, Steele dossier to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue a warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page? Mr. Mueller didn’t appear to want to investigate that part of the Russia story. Was that behavior of “the highest integrity”?

Mr. Mueller would have better served the country and his own reputation if he had simply done what he claimed he wants to do and let his report speak for itself. Instead he has weighed in for the Democrats who want to impeach the President, though he doesn’t have to be politically accountable as he skips town. This is the core problem with special counsels who think they answer only to themselves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t as fortunate. The media and backbench pressure will now build on her to open an impeachment inquiry to charge Donald Trump with obstructing an investigation that wasn’t obstructed into a conspiracy that didn’t exist. Unlike the honorable Mr. Mueller, House Democrats will be accountable at the ballot box in 2020.

Excellent posting but sometimes at least a portion should be copied and posted on the blog. (the ability to hyperlink is not always available) The very relevent ending of the article follows:

“Here is my question. (I know it has been asked before, but it can’t be repeated too often.) If Mueller’s charge was to investigate “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election…[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” why didn’t he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election–an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians. So why was Mueller’s investigation confined to the wrong campaign?

The question answers itself. Mueller’s mission was the same as Christopher Steele’s mission, and Glenn Simpson’s, and Perkins Coie’s, and Hillary Clinton’s: to destroy Donald Trump, by hook or by crook. That is the only explanation for Mueller’s seeming myopia about his own failure to look for collusion where, in all likelihood, it actually existed.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday said he would have indicted Donald Trump if he could have, resurrecting his saint-like status among Democrats who will now likely go for impeachment. But who is the real Bob Mueller?, asked ex-FBI official Coleen Rowley on June 6, 2017.

Mueller didn’t speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn’t speak out against torture. He didn’t speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn’t tell the truth about 9/11. He is just “their man.”

Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI’s pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine’s “Persons of the Year” in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled “Questions for the FBI Nominee” was published on the day of James Comey’s confirmation hearing.

Mueller just blew up the “totally exonerated” lie from Trump and the lie from Barr who said the DOJ policy on sitting presidents did not influence Mueller’s conclusions. Mueller’s statement today is in total sync with the report

“Collusion” was never the legal question and those like Trump who continue to use that term and claim the report cleared him of it are lying or fools. From Mueller’s statement:

“The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”

His statement today on the 2nd part of the report indicates that:

– the investigation was valid since it could lead to indictments of others and there were extra legal forums for pursuing charges against the president (Congress)
– the absence of a finding that the president was innocent of obstruction is a valid conclusion, not an oversight.
– the absence of a finding that he was guilty of obstruction is due to procedural restrictions due to DOJ policy, the unfairness of making a charge without a forum for the accused to prove his innocence, and alternative forums (Congress) other than a legal charge.

The reasoning is dense and not something every prosecutor might have come too, but understood fully, not unreasonable. Here is the cogent portion of his statement:

“The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work.

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president….”

Nancy will take her sweet time while House investigations are ongoing. This is a PR battle with the President’s story being the 1st out and easiest to understand. Nancy will try and chip away at that with public revelations of facts mostly known, but not to the public at large.

Olly, you’re a big boy and no doubt have seen a lot in your life. This is the age of Trump for goodness sake, so behavior by political leaders predicated on base motives, not high principle, is before you everyday.

Of course this is a PR battle and was from day one when Barr spun the report out of the gate to fit his bosses narrative. While not as easy to understand as “no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration”, the report never meant that and the details are damning if unknown to most Americans who have better things to do than read 400 pages of dry legalese. Nancy will try to make those details – and any new ones she can dig up – clear and compelling. Do you imagine Whitewater, 10 Benghazi hearings, and I don’t know how many Hillary email hearings were matters of high principle?

Anon says these things over and over again but when he has to put his accusations on paper and prove them the man simply runs away.

It is clear there was no conspiracy even though Mueller tried his hardest to twist the evidence to obtain that result. He failed and just like some people can’t accept that Hillary lost some people won’t accept that Mueller failed them.

Of course this is a PR battle and was from day one when Barr spun the report out of the gate to fit his bosses narrative.

No, day 1 has not yet been determined; but it most certainly was not any day this year, last year, or the year before that. Day 1 will likely be in 2016, or at the very least some date prior to the 2016 election. Investigations by Huber and Horowitz will get us a lot closer to determining the real day 1 and all the facts that has led us to where we are today. This should be a comforting prospect for anyone truly interested in justice and the rule of law.

That is a proper prosecutorial statement. Although given Mueller’s own “logic” he was not allowed to write that but did anyway.

“the absence of a finding that he was guilty of obstruction is due to procedural restrictions due to DOJ policy”

Then no finding should have been made with regard to conspiracy. You could, I suppose, make the fallacious claim that claiming there is insufficient evidence is allowed while claiming there is sufficient evidence is not. In that case, taking such a paradigm to its conclusion, anytime a prosecutors office discusses a possible crime by the President and cannot make the statement “there is insufficient evidence” then it must be interpreted to mean that there is. And that’s absurd.

Not following your last sentence Stevej – the double negative? – but I think I get the drift anyway, which I believe is an accurate interpretation of Mueller’s position. Because of DOJ policy, a prosecutor can comment on and up to various levels of evidence against a president except that which indicates a chargeable offense.

The problem with people like Anon is they do not follow their own logic to the logical conclusion.

Take just one simple argument: Anon writes: “– the investigation was valid since it could lead to indictments of others” That is what the FBI and our conterintelligence does. Suddenly that argument for a special prosecutor disappears.

That is what happens to all of Anon’s arguments. Mueller put up the best defense he could to preserve whatever little dignity and reputation he had and to tell the American people he wasn’t going to testify. Let’s see some of the questions that could be asked. ‘Mr Mueller why did you appoint so many Democrats and why did so many have relationships with Hillary? Mr Mueller why didn’t you delve deeper when the investigation pointed towards Hillary such as her or her campaign paying for the Steele Dossier?’

In the end Mr. Mueller was nothing more than a partisan hack who couldn’t do his job in his 400+ pages so he insinuated guilt in his final goodbye even though it didn’t exist. It’s not fair to charge someone when no court can adjudicate and protect the reputation of the individual involved says Mueller but it is fair to commit character assasination that does the same thing. The toad rides into the sunset and now the material Mueller should have included in his report will be released.

The problem with people like Anon is they do not follow their own logic to the logical conclusion.

It’s like they’re trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle without the box. They believe they know what it’s supposed to look like when they’re finished, but they can’t seem to make the pieces fit. For some reason the image keeps looking like a collage of the anti-Trumpers and their investigating force. Conclusion?: The puzzle is clearly broken.

Olly, Allan is too dense to realize I was summarizing and paraphrasing Mueller’s statement, not creating my own. That statement – and Mueller’s position – was not easy to understand but it’s not rocket science either.

Stevej, it may or may not be absurd, but Mueller didn’t say what you are saying. He in fact did say that if the president was found to not have committed a crime he “(we) would have said so.” By implication, if he did find the president committed a crime, he would not say so, because of the DOJ policy. That may or may not be a proper interpretation of that policy and the role he played within it. One assumes he did not make that determination without counsel from others and one hopes JT – and others – will discuss the finer points of this policy and what it should mean. I don’t doubt we will get plenty of that.

In other words, it is fine for the special council to say: “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy”. But it is not fine for the special council to say: “There IS sufficient of a broader conspiracy.” The office is prohibited in that case from stating that by the directive. Mueller would have to say something like: if the president was found to not have committed the crime of conspiracy, (we) would have said so.” Which given the directive means they in fact did have sufficient evidence for a conspiracy.

No, Stevej I don’t. Unsatisfying yes, and perhaps the DOJ should have met early and spelled out with and for Mueller what his duty was under policy. How Mueller got to that position is of interest to me and I hope JT tackles the question.

As to your hypothetical that he had found evidence of a broader conspiracy, I think he would have said something like this:

““If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said Wednesday. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller’s duties were spelled out by the independent council statute. Among those duties was to come to a determination as to whether there was sufficient or insufficient evidence that the President committed crimes.

He did that in one instance, and then failed in the other. Blatant inconsistency.

However, the SC statute was not written specifically for investigations of only the president, so what his duties are could differ in that case and as per the DOJ policy on a sitting president. Where’s JT on this one?

Obviously he can’t perform this part of the statute when a sitting President is involved, except for the “findings”, but as he explained, he determined it would be unfair to find for the guilt of someone who would not then be able to have his day in court, and that even a “secret” finding is illegal under that DOJ policy

“(9) initiating and conducting prosecutions in any court of competent jurisdiction, framing and signing indictments, filing informations, and handling all aspects of any case, in the name of the United States;”

:None of us like it and I have no idea how this holds up legally, but on the face of it it makes sense to me. Based on what he said to day, Trump should consider himself lucky he read the law that way.

” it would be unfair to find for the guilt of someone who would not then be able to have his day in court,”

That is why Mueller essentially said everything is ‘written in the Report’ and he wasn’t going to say anything more. Then he insinuated that the President’s guilt existed in that same report even though the President would not “be able to have his day in court.”

It’s no wonder the most RACIST and Greatest Organized Crime Syndication in history, the DNC manages to keep their Criminal Activity ongoing and their FRAUD upon America going.
Useful Idiots the likes of you are littered throughout history. Illiterrate Barbarian War Lord and Pedophile Fake Prophet MohamMAD had his, and there are 1.5 Million people Uneducated on the history of the most Murderous Geopolitical Movement in history: Islamism.
You, like Muslims, have blind Faith and remain extremely Uneducated on your Racist, Murderous, and Treasonous DNC’s Organized Crime Syndication.
You are evidence that it’s always easier to fool a fool than to convince the fool he’s been fooled…

“Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you,” Trump tweeted minutes after Mueller’s statement ended.

There are two findings a legitimate prosecutors office makes with regard to criminal conduct involving a sitting President. There is sufficient evidence or there is insufficient evidence.

Mueller’s explanation for his failure to do his job properly is unacceptable and blatantly contradictory. A finding was made with regard to Trump on conspiracy. There was insufficient evidence. So the mealy mouthed explanation that a finding could not be made on some other crime is absurd.

If the fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted prohibited a finding on one crime, then it prohibits a finding on others. But a finding was made with regard to conspiracy.

Impeachment is not predicated on findings of wrongdoing which would lead to criminal indictments and prosecution! In fact impeachment and removal have nothing to do with the law, and there is no way an impeached person can challenge impeachment or removal, for any reason. Impeachment makes our Federal Government System a Right to Work State, meaning the Union can fire anyone at any time for any reason, and they don’t have to justify why they are removing said person, all that is necessary is that as few as 9 States want to impeach you, and 37 States vote to remove you!

There is nothing the Supreme Court, your Party Affiliations, or your perceived constituents or base of support can do to prevent or influence the States decision made as the Union.

I know you, and your other sycophants posting on this thread, have no idea what I just said, or understand anything about the impeachment process or the Proper Assembly and Suffrage in our Government!

“I know you, and your other sycophants posting on this thread, have no idea what I just said,”

Nowhere in my discussion did I discuss impeachment but you seem to like to talk about rules and definitions that you believe you alone know. Whether you have any common sense concerning these rules is highly doubtful. Whether you interpretation of many of these rules is correct or not is open to question but listening to you makes that doubtful as well.

The only good thing I can say about your post above is it wasn’t as wordy as most of your others and therefore it didn’t ramble as much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

“There are two findings a legitimate prosecutors office makes with regard to criminal conduct involving a sitting President. There is sufficient evidence or there is insufficient evidence.”

Sufficient evidence to do what, SteveJ? To indict? Or NOT to indict? Think about it. Had Mueller found sufficient evidence to indict Trump for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Mueller would not have indicted Trump for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Nor would Barr have allowed Mueller to indict Trump for anything at all in The United States Code–say, obstruction of justice, for instance..

He invokes “logic” must possess “logic” or forever “chop logic.” L4D was here.